20190289 Ver 2_Recorded Order 01468 20190521_20190521

BK: R 8145 III
PG. 858-869
2019018940
RECORDED
NC FEE $2600
04-18-2019
GUILFORD COUNTY, NC
10:40:07 AM
JEFF L. THIGPEN
BY HSIAO-WEI AHERON REGISTER OF DEEDS
DEPUTY -GB
/A
/L
`J2.�V OF Gb,<�O9
GUILFORD COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
400 W. Market St.
CA"Oy P. O. Box 3427
Greensboro, NC 27402
[phone]
RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT MAJOR STORMWATER BUFFER
VARIANCE
At its meeting on April 10, 2019, after conducting a duly advertised, quasi-judicial hearing
and after considering the application materials, testimony, exhibits, and other evidence
presented at the hearing or otherwise appearing in the whole record, and the approval
criteria of Section 7-1.12 of the Guilford County Development Ordinance, the Guilford
County Planning Board voted 6 to 0 to RECOMMEND APPROVAL to the Guilford County
Board of Commissioners of the Stream Buffer Variance Application submitted by Publix
Super Markets, Inc. (Major Buffer Variance Case #19-02-GCPL-01468), for a 338.69
acre tract located at 311 Birch Creek Road being Tax Parcel #117416, and ADOPTING
the following FINDINGS OF FACT and draws the following CONCLUSIONS:
1. It is the Board's CONCLUSION that, if the applicant complies with the provisions
of this Ordinance, they will not secure reasonable return from, or make reasonable use
Page 1 of 12 Not to be separated.

of, his/her property. Merely proving that the variance would permit a greater profit from
the property shall not be considered adequate justification for a variance. This conclusion
is based on the following FINDINGS of FACT:
In accordance with the attached findings by the Board adopted herein bV reference.
2. It is the Board's CONCLUSION that the variance is the minimum possible
deviation from the terms of this Ordinance that shall make reasonable use of the property
possible. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS of FACT:
In accordance with the attached findings by the Board adopted herein by reference.
3. It is the Board's CONCLUSION that the hardship does result from application of
this Ordinance to the property rather than from other factors such as deed restrictions or
other hardship. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
In accordance with the attached findings bV the Board adopted herein by reference.
4. It is the Board's CONCLUSION that the hardship is due to the physical nature of
the applicant's property, such as its size, shape, or topography, such that compliance with
provisions of this Ordinance would not allow reasonable use of the property. This
conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
In accordance with the attached findings by the Board adopted herein by reference.
5. It is the Board's CONCLUSION that the applicant did not cause the hardship by
knowingly or unknowingly violating this Ordinance. This conclusion is based on the
following FINDINGS OF FACT:
In accordance with the attached findings bV the Board adopted herein by reference.
6. It is the Board's CONCLUSION that the applicant did purchase the property after
the effective date of this Ordinance, and then request a variance. This conclusion is based
on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
In accordance with the attached findings by the Board adopted herein bV reference.
Page 2 of 12 Not to be separated.

It is the Board's CONCLUSION that the hardship is rare or unique to the applicant's
property. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
In accordance with the attached findings by the Board adopted herein by reference.
8. It is the Board's CONCLUSION that the requested variance is in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of the State's riparian buffer protection requirements and this
Ordinance and preserves its spirit. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS
OF FACT:
In accordance with the attached findings by the Board adopted herein by reference.
9. It is the Board's CONCLUSION that the requested variance is ensuring that the
public safety and welfare have been assured, water quality has been protected, and
substantial justice has been done. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS
OF FACT:
In accordance with the attached findings by the Board adopted herein by reference.
THEREFORE, on the basis of all the foregoing, the Guilford County Planning Board
recommends that the application for a major stormwater buffer VARIANCE be
GRANTED subject to compliance with all applicable state, local, and federal laws.
Signed, this the 1�7 day of April, 2019.
Frankie Jong, Jr., &VairmaOr
CERTIFICATION
I,���L l(i( , Clerk to the Guilford County Planning Board, do hereby
c ify the foregoin to be a true copy of a Resolution Adopting Findings and Recommending
Approval of a Major Variance — Publix Super Markets, Inc. (19-02-GCPL-01468) duly adopted
by the Guilford County Planning Board at a meeting,held on April 10, 2019. In witness whereof,
I have hereunto set my hand and have caused the se8ljof uittord County to be affixed this the
Z day of April, 2019.ilajl� ; }' •,t/� ''%
<:> .••....� ' .l Wil;
Ssc.
Page 3 of 12 Not to be separated. ,

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF GUILFORD
I, the undersigned, Notary Public for said State and County certify that Frankie Jones, personally
came before me this day and acknowledged Frankie Jones as the Chairperson of the Guilford
County Planning Board, a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina and Chair of the
Guilford County Planning Board and that by authority duly given and as the act of the County, the
foregoing instrument was signed in its name by him as its Chairperson of the Guilford County
Planning Board.
WITNESS my hand and notarial seal this V'�day of April, 2019.
,�pnrrrrq
NOTARY
PUBLIC a
(Official Seal)
Page 4 of 12 Not to be separated.
CU. 4d
Tonya W. Hodgin, Notary Public
My Commission Expires: q " z I -19

Fc GUILFORD COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
o DEPARTMENT
400 W. Market St.
CAR0 P. O. Box 3427
Greensboro, NC 27402
[phone]
ATTACHMENT
FINDINGS FOR RECOMMNDATION TO GRANT MAJOR
STORMWATER BUFFER VARIANCE
CASE #19-02-GCPL-01468
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.
1. Applicant is the owner of the Subject Property.
2. The Subject Property is a 338.69 acre tract bearing property identification number
8804593177 and identifiable as Guilford County tax parcel 117416.
3. The Subject Property is currently zoned LI—Light Industrial, per the Guilford
County Official Zoning Map.
4. Applicant is seeking to establish on the Subject Property a secure corporate
campus and integrated food warehousing and distribution facilities and systems use that
will include a refrigerated warehouse facility, dry warehouse facility, return center facility,
food manufacturing facility, parking and staging for commercial vehicles, parking for
vehicles of Applicant -employed associates, and support facilities (the "Proposed Use").
5. The Applicant is seeking from the Environmental Management Commission a
major variance as to the application to the Subject Property and the Proposed Use of the
riparian buffer protection and maintenance provisions of the Jordan Water Supply Nutrient
Strategy Rules (the "Rules").
6. The Applicant and the Timmons Group submitted a Stream Buffer Variance
Application (the "Application") to Guilford County for the Subject Property. The
Application is on forms provided by Guilford County, and the Application contains all
pertinent information as required by law.
Page 5 of 12 Not to be separated.

7. The Timmons Group is Applicant's authorized agent for purposes of the
Application.
8. The Application and other records pertaining to the Application are part of the
record of the hearing.
9. In January 2019, the Applicant submitted the Application to Guilford County, which
was accepted by Guilford County.
10. On March 19, 2019, at its regularly scheduled meeting, the Guilford County
Technical Review Committee (the "TRC") reviewed the Application. In that meeting, the
TRC conditionally approved the Application and forwarded the Application to this Board.
11. On April 3, 2019 and April 4, 2019, the Timmons Group submitted minor revisions
to the Application, which are part of the Application and which were accepted by Guilford
County (the "Supplements'; together with the Application, hereinafter the "Application").
12. Guilford County provided notice of the Application and notice of the quasi-judicial
hearing, as required by law.
13. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that the Proposed Use on the
Subject Property requires significant area to house the +/-1.1 million sq. ft refrigerated
warehouse component space, the +/-1.3 million sq. ft dry warehouse component space,
the return center component space, the 120,000 sq. ft food manufacturing facility
component space, the commercial fleet and associate access and parking component
spaces, and the ancillary support (i.e., commercial fleet maintenance, commercial fleet
fueling, dispatch, and security) component spaces, each and all of which are critical to
the Proposed Use and any one of which the Proposed Use cannot exist without on the
Subject Property.
14. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that the Proposed Use must be well-
designed and well-managed to ensure food safety, as well as to ensure the efficient and
effective use of space and resources while maintaining a high level of associate safety.
Efficient and effective use of the Subject Property for the Proposed Use, as well as food
safety and associate safety, requires that the component spaces are contiguous.
However, associate safety also requires separation of associate pedestrian and vehicle
traffic from the commercial (e.g., forklift and tractor trailer) vehicle traffic on the Subject
Property, while maintaining the overall contiguity of the component spaces. That safety
design requirement necessitates the separation of the associate parking areas and
Page 6 of 12 Not to be separated.

associate pedestrian access areas from all commercial vehicle traffic movement. The
design requires warehouse associate to use a dedicated entrance to the Subject Property
and to park in a dedicated, secured parking area, both of which are segregated from the
commercial vehicle areas on the Subject Property but are nonetheless contiguous to the
component spaces on the Subject Property. From the dedicated, secured parking area,
warehouse associate enter the core support areas of the warehouses along elevated
pedestrian walkways through controlled access points. The design also requires
associates working in the dispatch component space, return center component space,
and fleet maintenance component space to use a separate, dedicated entrance and
dedicated parking area that are likewise segregated from the commercial vehicle areas
on the Subject Property, but are also nonetheless contiguous to the component spaces
on the Subject Property.
15. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that the design of the Proposed Use
is compliant with the Rules in all but one area of the Subject Property. That one area
impacts a limited section of stream "Sl", on the western edge of the Subject Property (the
"Buffer Impact"), which results from the necessary, contiguous location of the dedicated,
secured parking area for the warehouse associates, the food manufacturing facility
component space, and the refrigerated warehouse component space. The Buffer Impact
is unavoidable on the Subject Property for the location of the contiguous, dedicated
parking area and pedestrian access area for warehouse associates that are segregated
from the commercial (e.g., forklift and tractor trailer) vehicle traffic areas necessary for
associate safety as well as for the location of the contiguous, controlled access area for
the refrigerated warehouse component space necessary for food safety.
16. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that without the Buffer Impact the
Applicant cannot secure a reasonable return from the Subject Property. The Subject
Property's shape, size, and location support it as a unique site for a food warehousing
and distribution facilities and systems project of this scale and complexity, and the
Proposed Use is a return reasonably expected from the Subject Property. The design of
the Proposed Use provides sufficient area to construct and house the +/-2.5 million sq. ft
of component space, in a contiguous arrangement critical for associate safety and food
safety, while segregating access, traffic, and parking areas between the commercial
vehicles and associate vehicles and pedestrians, all of which are necessary for
Applicant's Proposed Use on the Subject Property. Without the Buffer Impact, the Subject
Property cannot accommodate the +/-2.5 million sq. ft of component space, in a
contiguous arrangement critical for associate safety and food safety, while segregating
access, traffic, and parking areas between the commercial vehicles and associate
vehicles and associate pedestrians.
Page 7 of 12 Not to be separated.

17. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that without the Buffer Impact the
Applicant cannot make reasonable use of the Subject Property. The Subject Property's
shape, size, and location render it reasonable for large-scale uses, such as Applicant's
proposed food warehousing and distribution facilities and systems use. Without the
minimal Buffer Impact, however, the Subject Property cannot reasonably accommodate
large-scale uses. To the contrary, almost any large-scale use on the Subject Property is
likely to result in more significant impacts to the riparian buffer protection and
maintenance provisions of the Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy Rules than in the
Buffer Impact. Without the Buffer Impact, Applicant cannot locate its proposed food
warehousing and distribution facilities and systems use on the Subject Property, which is
a reasonable use of the Property.
18. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that the Buffer Impact is the
minimum possible deviation from the Rules that shall make possible Applicant's
reasonable use of the Subject Property. Several alternative design iterations of the
Proposed Use on the Subject Property were developed by industry experts and analyzed
to determine, if at all possible, alternative layouts that avoid or, if not avoid, further
minimize impacts to areas governed by the Rules, while providing the design necessary
to house +/-2.5 million sq. ft of component space and allow for the efficient and effective
use of that component space though ensuring a high level of associate safety and food
safety on the Subject Property that are critical to the Proposed Use on the Subject
Property. Applicant considered utilizing 2:1 slope versus 3:1 slope design and./or the
installation of retaining walls to further minimize or avoid impacts, however it was
concluded that the soils on the Subject Property may not be able to structurally withstand
steeper sloping and that retaining walls would require the relocation of critical utility
infrastructure that the relevant utility companies could not place behind retaining walls or
within geogrid systems. None of the alternative design iterations avoided impacts or
further minimized impacts from the Buffer Impact, or was otherwise possible for the
Subject Property. The Buffer Impact, which is the minimum possible deviation from the
Rules, is necessary for Applicant's location of its Proposed Use on the Subject Property,
which is Applicant's reasonable use of the Subject Property.
19. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that the hardship necessitating the
Buffer Impact results directly and entirely from the application of the Rules to the Subject
Property. There is no factor causing the hardship other than the application of the Rules
to the Subject Property. Aside from the Buffer Impact, the design of the Proposed Use is
not inconsistent with any Guilford County, North Carolina, or federal law or regulation or
private restriction. The design of the Proposed Use on the Subject Property can meet all
Guilford County, North Carolina, or federal laws or regulations or private restrictions, but
if the Buffer Impact is not allowed, the Applicant cannot locate its Proposed Use on the
Page 8 of 12 Not to be separated.

Subject Property, as the application of the Rules to the Subject Property is the sole cause
of the hardship.
20. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that the hardship necessitating the
Buffer Impact results from the physical nature of the Subject Property, which is different
from that of neighboring properties. The Subject Property is bound by second order
perennial streams along both the eastern and western boundaries, which is a physical
nature unique to the Subject Property and which requires a careful design in order to
avoid impacts. The design of the Proposed Use on the Subject Property avoids these
impacts, but results in the Buffer Impact. Shifting the design of the Proposed Use in an
attempt to avoid, or even further minimize, the minimal Buffer Impact will result in other,
more significant impacts to streams, buffers, and wetlands on the Subject Property, such
that the physical nature of the Subject Property renders the Buffer Impact the minimum
possible deviation from the Rules and renders the Buffer Impact necessary for Applicant's
proposed use. The size and shape of the Subject Property are different from neighboring
properties, as are the topographical features such as the streams, and these unique
physical features are the sole cause of the hardship necessitating the Buffer Impact.
21. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that the Applicant has not violated
the Rules as applied to the Subject Property, and the Applicant has not caused the
hardship necessitating the Buffer Impact. Rather, the Applicant is seeking approval of
the Buffer Impacts prior to development of the Proposed Use on the Subject Property.
22. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that valid hardship is demonstrated.
Applicant purchased the Subject Property after the effective date of the Rules applicable
to the Subject Property. However, Applicant's careful design of the Proposed Use on the
Subject Property meets the food safety and personal safety requirements critical to the
large-scale Proposed Use, without which Applicant cannot reasonably use the Subject
Property, while minimizing deviation from the Rules. The Buffer Impact is the minimal
deviation from the Rules for Applicant to develop the Proposed Use on the Subject
Property. Neither Applicant's design of the Proposed Use, nor the resulting necessary
Buffer Impact, is to maximize use of the Subject Property. Rather, the design and
necessary Buffer Impact make reasonable use of the Subject Property and secure a
reasonable return from the Subject Property.
23. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that the hardship necessitating the
Buffer Impact is unique to the Subject Property and is not widespread. The hardship
results from the physical nature of the Subject Property, which is different from other
properties. Approving the Buffer Impacts would not be a special privilege to Applicant that
is denied to other property owners because other property owners are not facing the
Page 9 of 12 Not to be separated.

hardship faced by Applicant and its Proposed Use of the Subject Property, as a direct
and sole result of the application of the Rules.
24. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that there are practical difficulties in
the way of carrying out the strict letter of the Rules as applied to the Subject Property.
Efficient and effective use of the Subject Property for the food warehousing and
distribution facilities and systems proposed by Application, as well as food safety and
associate safety, requires that the component spaces are contiguous. However,
associate safety also requires separation of associate pedestrian and associate vehicle
traffic from the commercial (e.g., forklift and tractor trailer) vehicle traffic on the Subject
Property, while maintaining the overall contiguity of the component spaces. The design
of the food warehousing and distribution facilities and systems proposed on the Subject
Property provides sufficient area to construct and house the +/-2.5 million sq. ft of
component space, in a contiguous arrangement critical for associate safety and food
safety, while segregating access, traffic, and parking areas between the commercial
vehicles and associate vehicles and associate pedestrians, which are necessary for
Applicant's food warehousing and distribution facilities and systems proposed on the
Subject Property.
25. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that there are unnecessary
hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the Rules as applied to the Subject
Property. Without the Buffer Impact, Applicant cannot develop the Proposed Use.
Without the Proposed Use on the Subject Property, Applicant cannot make reasonable
use of the Subject Property nor secure a reasonable return from the Subject Property.
The Buffer Impact is the minimum possible deviation from the Rules that shall make
possible Applicant's Proposed Use, and none of the alternative design iterations
developed and considered by Applicant and its experts avoided impacts or further
minimized impacts from the Buffer Impact, or was otherwise possible for the Subject
Property. The strict application of the Rules to the Subject Property, and denial of the
Buffer Impact, is an unnecessary hardship to Applicant.
26. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that approving the Buffer Impacts is
in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Guilford County Development
Ordinance (the "Ordinance") and preserves its spirit. The general purpose of the
Ordinance is stated "to promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the
residents of Guilford County through the regulations of this Ordinance". Without the
Buffer Impacts, which are the minimum possible deviation from the Rules, Applicant
cannot locate its Proposed Use on the Subject Property. Applicant's Proposed Use is a
significant economic development opportunity in Guilford County, contributing towards
the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of Guilford County and its citizens. The
Page 10 of 12 Not to be separated.

strategically efficient and critical capacity provided by Applicant's Proposed Use enables
Applicant's food retailing growth in and around Guilford County, a citizenry need. The
Subject Property is served by Burlington Road (Rt. 70), a Major Thoroughfare, and the
Subject Property is intended for Light Industrial Land Use on the Guilford County
Northeast Area Plan. Within the Proposed Use on the Subject Property, multiple site
features promote public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, including (1)
separation of associates vehicle and pedestrian traffic from commercial traffic, (2) multiple
levels of security, including keyed entry gate and badge security between parking and
warehouses, for food safety and associate safety, (3) wayfinding signage and striping for
traffic circulation control, (4) internal pedestrian connectivity and striping/wayfinding to
ensure safe circulation between buildings, (5) stormwater management controls will meet
or exceed standards set forth in the Ordinance and the State of North Carolina
Stormwater Design Manual, (6) redundant power (generator) and fire protection systems,
(7) sufficient pavement area for safe circulation of WB -67 and larger commercial trucks
within the Subject Property, (8) a return center component facilitating recovery and
processing of cardboard and other recyclables from Applicant's stores, and (9) proposed
buildings on the Subject Property are distanced significantly from the property line, and a
vegetated buffer is provided on the west, south, and east sides of the Subject Property.
Outside the Subject Property, multiple features also promote public health, safety, morals,
and general welfare, including (1) the North Carolina Department of Transportation is
widening U.S. 70 to a four -lane road from Mt Hope Church road to the Subject Property,
for safe access to the Subject Property, (2) the two driveway intersections of the Subject
Property will be signalized, (3) the City of Greensboro will develop a wastewater sewer
outfall extension to serve the Subject Property and surrounding area of the Subject
Property, (4) a security fence will surround the full perimeter of the Subject Property, and
(5) preservation of the second order streams and associated riparian buffers on the
eastern and western boundary of the Subject Property. The Proposed Use necessitating
the Buffer Impact, and therefore the approval of the Buffer Impact, is consistent with the
purpose and spirit of the Ordinance.
27. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that approving the Buffer Impact is
in harmony with the stated purpose of the watershed protection provisions contained
within the Ordinance. The Subject Property is not located within a Watershed Critical
Area as defined by the Ordinance. The design of the Proposed Use minimizes land
disturbance with a contiguous arrangement of built upon area along the existing ridgelines
of the Subject Property to avoid impacts to the second order streams and associated
riparian buffers on the eastern and western boundary of the Subject Property, and by
keeping significant undisturbed vegetative buffering along the west, south, and east sides
of the Subject Property. The design of the Proposed Use reduces the volume of nutrients
and other chemicals which could enter the water supply, will manage the stormwater on
Page 11 of 12 Not to be separated.

the Subject Property, and will reduce the probability of the release of harmful chemicals
into water supply reservoirs through stormwater controls on the Subject Property that will
meet or exceed standards set forth in the Ordinance and the State of North Carolina
Stormwater Design Manual, which will provide stormwater quality treatment and which is
an improvement of the Subject Property because stormwater presently runs off the
subject Property and continues downstream untreated.
28. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that approving the Buffer Impact on
the Subject Property assures public health and safety, protects water quality, and does
substantial justice. Public health and safety is assured by the many internal and external
features of the Proposed Use. Water quality is protected because that the Buffer Impact
is the minimum possible deviation from the Rules that shall make possible Applicant's
reasonable use of the Subject Property, and because the Proposed Use will have
stormwater controls that will meet or exceed standards set forth in the Ordinance and the
State of North Carolina Stormwater Design Manual. Applicant is also mitigating the Buffer
Impact through the purchasing of mitigation credits through the South Fork Nutrient Offset
and Buffer Mitigation Bank and the UT to Pine Hill Branch Nutrient Offset and Buffer
Mitigation Bank. Substantial justice is done because the Subject Property's unique
physical features require a careful design in order to avoid impacts though necessitates
the Buffer Impact for the development of the Proposed Use. Without the Buffer Impact,
which is the minimum possible deviation from the Rules that shall make possible
Applicant's reasonable use of the Subject Property, Applicant cannot make reasonable
use of the Subject Property nor secure a reasonable return from the Subject Property.
Substantial justice requires approval of the Buffer Impacts for a Proposed Use protective
of public health and safety and water quality.
29. Compliance with all local, state, and federal laws.
[END]
Page 12 of 12 Not to be separated.